Will the proposed 26 percent profit sharing clause in the mining bill speed up the production or scare away investors? - My point of view published on Infraline

A draft law has been approved by a ministerial panel headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee which, if passed by the Cabinet, will make it mandatory for the coal producers to share 26 percent of their profits with the population affected by the project. The proposed law has raised objections from the mining industry, fearing that it would result in heavy taxation, which, in turn, would diminish the investments in the sector. However, there are many who are in favour of it, including the largest coal producer, Coal India Ltd.


The mining industry is unique in some sense because of the magnitude of the environmental and social problems associated with this industry. A number of specific characteristics of the mining industry contribute to these problems. Choices of locations are not flexible, so often mining takes place in ecologically and socially sensitive areas. Particularly in those cases, the damage tends to be irreversible. Another characteristic of the mining companies is that they tend to be seen as an economically strategic sector. These two parameters tend to imply a conflict and a risk in terms of corporate accountability. That said, the mining industry has been moving from being a voluntary and marginal contributor to the society—it is part of becoming a partner in social development and making a significant impact on the standard of life for the project affected people. The Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Bill that stipulates that coal mining companies will have to share 26 percent of their net profit for the purpose of the social balancing act. While there cannot be two opinions about compensating the project affected people, the stipulation of 26 percent share of profit does appear steep.


It may have an impact on investment in coal mining sector. And investments in mining ventures should not be viewed in isolation. Any impact on the investment in such a mining venture must consider the micro-economic impact of the venture. It would be stating the obvious that minerals produced from mining ventures are typically consumed in manufacturing sector and the chain of value additions end with the ultimate consumer. In case of a coal mine, the investment in mine is likely to be coupled with investment in power generation, steel or cement. If we take the example of coal mining and power generation, for every Rupee invested in coal mine, typically, five-fold investment goes into power generation plant. This can be enlarged, if the project needs infrastructure investments as well. Similar is the multiplier effect on generation of employment and these projects also help create local business opportunities and employment in these ancillaries. The local business development occurs through the investment in a coal mine and addition of power project in the portfolio, which enhances levels of economic activities and improvement in purchasing power of people in the region.

There is a difference between tax and social contribution, but the mandatory nature of the social contribution can make it appear similar to tax. Currently, coal mining in India attracts following taxes and contributions: Corporate income tax – 33 percent; Royalty – depends on the coal quality/grade; Dead rents – lease rents for land; Corporate social responsibility commitments (percent on revenues) – largely voluntary; Education cess – two percent surcharge; Environment levies – for coal, it is Rupees 50 per tonne of raw coal mined; and Indirect taxes – on consumables. If the 26 percent mandatory profit share is implemented, the taxes and mandatory contributions will account for more than half of the cost of coal production. While costs per se may not be a concern as much as the capacity to pass these costs on to the final consumer, which is where, the industry concerns may lay.

It is observed that raising the level of taxation brings the cash flows forward to the present from its mineral sector, which otherwise is due over time. Reason for this being the observation that tax hike always raises government revenues over the first few years from its promulgation. This is likely to discourage exploration and mine development in the longer run, and so reduces tax revenues on a life cycle basis.

The provision for profit share is likely to have limited success in addressing long-term issues that confront the industry and its investment environment, as hence, the same project affected people. Considering the macro-economic parameters, in long run, the industry and the government, as also the other stakeholders, including project affected people are likely to witness lower realization from a higher imposed contribution required from the mining projects. The provision, as it stands, is likely to erode the attractiveness of coal mining operations and may even act as a deterrent to investments into the marginally profitable coal blocks. It may help that the proposed profit taxes should be dropped in favour of enhanced but fair compensation to project affected people. Fair compensation for the project affected people should be based on earning capacity from that land keeping in view the market conditions for requirement of land. It may be suggested that in addition to compensation for land, the displaced should get annuity for life of the lease period at a rate agreed by the mining company, project affected people and the government.